『Love & Philosophy』のカバーアート

Love & Philosophy

Love & Philosophy

著者： Beyond Dichotomy | Andrea Hiott
無料で聴く

It's reasonable to care. Exploring philosophical, scientific, technological & poetic spaces beyond either/or bounds. From the heart. Deeply researched. Mostly unscripted.


Hosted by philosopher and cognitive scientist Andrea Hiott. A project with Making Ways. Buy the book Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness. And join the Substack.



© 2026 Love & Philosophy 個人的成功 哲学 生物科学 社会科学 科学 自己啓発
エピソード
  • #93 Is there a Cure? Reconsidering Freud, chemical imbalances, transference, functionalism & embodied science with Mark Solms

    #93 Is there a Cure? Reconsidering Freud, chemical imbalances, transference, functionalism & embodied science with Mark Solms
    2026/08/08
    Send a love messageMark Solms began translating Freud's neuroscientific writings in the late 1980s, then gave twenty-nine years to revising the translation of Freud's psychological works. In this episode, Solms joins Andrea Hiott to talk about his new book, The Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing — and to make a surprising case: that far from being the discredited figure many take him for, Freud built a model of the mind, from the inside, that modern neuroscience is now confirming from the outside.Together they explore multiple memory systems and the unconscious as things we repeat rather than remember; why transference is a far bigger phenomenon than its jargon suggests; the damage done by the "chemical imbalance" story of depression; the stubborn role of time in real change; and, in the end, care — the idea that psychoanalysis is ultimately a cure by love. Throughout, they return to the show's animating theme: holding paradox, and refusing the false choice between the subjective and the objective, feeling and fact.(Please see here for all the papers to really look into the serotonin debate. It is nuanced and requires study and deep thought.)Andrea & Mark also discuss dual-aspect monism, subjective and objective perspectives, multiple memory systems, unconscious processing, state-dependent memory, and transference as the enactment of non-declarative “action policies” that therapy makes visible and revisable through repeated working-through over time. Solms links these ideas to care, politics, and mortality, ending with Freud’s “cure by love,” followed by Andrea reading Seamus Heaney’s “From The Cure at Troy.”About the guest: Mark Solms is a neuropsychologist, psychoanalyst, and world-leading pioneer of neuropsychoanalysis. He discovered the brain mechanisms of dreaming, serves as science director of the American Psychoanalytic Association, and is the translator and editor of the Revised Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. His previous book was The Hidden Spring (2021).00:00 Welcome and Guest Intro03:50 Freud Translator Journey05:20 Why Call It Cure07:00 Reframing Freud Today11:41 Freud as Neuroscientist19:57 Memory Systems and Unconscious31:41 Subjective Meets Objective39:08 Chemical Imbalance Myth43:23 Needs Feelings and Therapy51:03 Pills Versus Talking52:09 Limits Of Medication53:31 When Pills Help54:41 What Is Transference56:04 Infantile Amnesia57:17 Interpreting Patterns01:01:25 Why Therapy Takes Time01:04:46 Cost Versus Care01:10:59 Teddy And Polypharmacy01:19:20 Short Termism Trap01:23:13 Cure By Love01:25:37 AI Therapy Limits01:31:25 Mortality And Meaning01:34:55 Closing Thanks01:36:09 Heaney Poem Easter EggKEY THEMESFreud was a neuroscientist first. Over 23 years he contributed to neuron theory, neuroanatomy, and clinical neurology. His 1891 work on aphasia reframed language as a psychological function — the seed of psychoanalysis. Because his neuroscientific writings were never translated into English, this side of Freud stayed invisible.Two perspectives on one thing. Solms argues for dual-aspect monism: the subjective and objective are two views of a single reality, not rival teams. Feelings can only be empirically observed through introspection — leave them out and you lose half the causal picture.Memory, the unconscious, and transference. Freud anticipated the modern model of multiple memory systems decades early. Unconscious memories aren't recalled as images; they're repeated as "motor policies." Transference is that repetition made visible — and naming it gives the patient the freedom to revise it ("free won't").Against the "chemical imbalance" myth. The claim that depression is a serotonin deficiency is, for Solms, both conceptually incoherent and empirically disproven. Bad feelings are signals of unmet needs. Medication has a real but limited role — it changes your state, not who you are.Time, care, and cure by love. Real change is slow because procedural memories are "hard to learn and hard to forget." Therapy works partly as re-parenting, drawing on the mammalian capacity for care. Cure and care share the Latin root cura — and Solms ends on Freud's phrase that psychoanalysis is "a cure by love."NOTABLE MOMENTS"One doesn't cure symptomatically. One cures causally." "They're not remembered, they're repeated." "It's called not free will, it's called free won't." "Computers don't give a damn." "Reality always wins."MENTIONED & FURTHER READINGThe Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing — Mark SolmsThe Hidden Spring (2021) — Mark SolmsThe Revised Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (2024) — translated/edited by SolmsHolding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness — Andrea HiottReferenced thinkers & ideas: Sigmund Freud, Baruch Spinoza (dual-aspect monism), Hilary Putnam (functionalism), Edward Tolman (multiple memory systems),...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 37 分
  • #92 Molyneux's Problem and Questioning the Perception/Cognition Border with philosophers Janet Levin and Brian Glenney

    #92 Molyneux's Problem and Questioning the Perception/Cognition Border with philosophers Janet Levin and Brian Glenney
    2026/07/28
    Send a love messageMolyneux's Question with Janet Levin and Brian GlenneyLove & Philosophy — Beyond DichotomyIn 1688, an Irish scientist named William Molyneux sent John Locke a letter with a question in it. Suppose a man born blind has learned by touch to tell a cube from a sphere. Suppose he is given sight, and the two objects are set on a table in front of him. Could he tell, by looking alone, which is which?Locke said no, and put the question into the second edition of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Berkeley said no more emphatically. Leibniz said yes — with a hint, and a little time. And three centuries later the question is still open, only now it's being asked in operating theatres in New Delhi, in habituation studies with ten-hour-old infants, and in the way a skateboarder looks at a handrail.Janet Levin and Brian Glenney have been in conversation about this problem since Brian's dissertation defense in 2007, where Janet was on his committee. They still disagree (productively) about whether you need to move your body in order to see. This episode is that disagreement, twenty years on.Janet Levin is recently retired from the philosophy department at the University of Southern California. She works on the mind-body problem, phenomenal concepts, and what she calls the philosophy of philosophy: whether thought experiments are worth anything, and whether they can absorb empirical information and still count as philosophy. Her 2008 paper introduced the distinction between temporal and epistemic immediacy that has shaped how the Molyneux question is tested ever since.Brian Glenney teaches at Norwich University in Vermont. He wrote his dissertation on Molyneux's problem at USC in 2007 under James Van Cleve and Janet Levin, wrote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the question, and has since argued for a pluralist answer — that the question has many correct answers depending on who is being asked about, and how. He also works on skateboarding, urban space, and the sensory expertise he calls the skater's eye.Full show notes00:00 — Why a navigational approach to mind keeps running into this question02:20 — Introductions: phenomenal concepts, sensory expertise, and Bernie Sanders at the skate park05:20 — Janet reads Locke's own statement of the question, and his answer08:00 — Why this was supposed to be the crucial experiment for empiricism vs. rationalism10:30 — The 1688 letter Locke never answered, and the 1693 one he did12:00 — Molyneux, Dioptrica Nova, and the attempt to give empiricism experimental oomph14:00 — Why Locke buried the question in a passage about perceptual learning15:00 — Common sensibles: what touch and sight might share17:00 — Locke's "at first sight" trick, and what it forecloses19:30 — Passivity vs. activity: if you move your head, is it still perception?20:40 — Leibniz's cheat code, and the birth of epistemic immediacy22:20 — Janet's distinction: temporal immediacy vs. epistemic immediacy24:15 — Held (2011) and the best evidence for a "no"27:30 — Andrea's caricature: two languages, or one idea?29:30 — Why restored vision isn't normal vision — and the paradox that follows31:00 — Vision and touch as English and Russian; Leibniz as the bilingual child33:30 — Janet on phenomenal concepts and why Molyneux caught her35:40 — Did you know Adam Smith had a theory of perception? He wrote it at fifteen37:50 — Brian finds his own ancestor in the archive: George Glennie, Aberdeen, 179640:15 — The moon illusion, and how Janet and Brian actually met41:20 — The dissertation with six chapters, and the one revision that changed everything42:30 — Maybe there isn't a single correct answer47:15 — Project Prakash: five subjects, three days of play, and a fast yes51:30 — Janet's counter-proposal: what if you only tweak vision?55:20 — Bumpy pacifiers, baby chicks, and the ten-hour-old infants who disagree58:50 — The six-month-old who recognizes its own hand01:01:00 — Nobody frames it as empiricism vs. rationalism anymore01:03:20 — The couch potato perceiver and the sentient statue01:05:50 — Could virtual reality run the experiment we can't?01:07:00 — Path dependency: every subject arrives with a history01:11:20 — The blind Rubik's Cube puzzler, and whether expertise transfers01:15:00 — "Give me something I care about": motivation as the missing variable01:19:10 — Why does perception have to be passive at all?01:22:20 — Andrea: what if it isn't yes or no?01:26:50 — Ned Block and the border between seeing and thinking01:29:20 — The skater's eye: knowledge in the heel rather than the head01:33:00 — Enactivism, affordances, and the motivation Brian adds to them01:36:30 — Janet puts a lock on the back gate01:39:20 — Do you still care about this? Plato's cave, Reid, and the seduction of the external worldSome words that come upEmpiricism / rationalism — The organizing quarrel of the era. Empiricists (...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 53 分
  • #91 Rethinking Biological Agency & What Really Matters in Life with Charlie Munford and the Agential Biology Institute

    #91 Rethinking Biological Agency & What Really Matters in Life with Charlie Munford and the Agential Biology Institute
    2026/07/17

    Send a love message

    Charlie has been gathering some of the best scientists in the world to rethink what agency is together and form new connections outside the usual academic constraints

    Join Andrea in NYC this week here.

    Today's guest is Charlie Munford, president of the Agential Biology Institute, and he has been gathering some of the best scientists and philosophers in the world together to rethink agency. Andrea and Charlie have a personal, meandering conversation that moves from family life stories to foundational questions in biology, education, evolution, and meaning. Munford recounts growing up in Mississippi, wilderness canoe trips, Yale literature and polo, organic agriculture studies in Cuba, farming and a New Orleans wild boar sausage business, and a later personal crisis that pushed him into researching chronic disease and biological agency. He argues mainstream gene-centered biology assumes blind variation, but evidence for inherited acquired changes and directional adaptation (horizontal gene transfer, planaria pattern memory, small-RNA inheritance in worms and mammals, maternal grooming effects, genetic assimilation) suggests a missing causal layer and universal cellular learning. They discuss natural selection, Darwin and Lamarck, Barbara McClintock, a Karl Popper “active Darwinism” lecture, ABI’s testable hypotheses, and openness, creativity, and care.

    00:00 Welcome and Brooklyn Invite
    04:20 Meet Charlie Munford
    04:35 Banana Couch Story
    05:49 Kids and Creativity
    08:48 Mississippi to Yale Adventures
    15:17 Farming Cuba and Sausage Business
    18:40 Crisis Sparks Biology Questions
    21:38 Agential Biology Explained
    30:04 Lamarck Darwin and Natural Selection
    36:45 Evidence for Inherited Change
    46:21 McClintock and Popper Teaser
    47:51 Cells Sense Not Code
    48:36 Genes Aren't Difference Makers
    49:45 Popper Versus Selfish Gene
    54:06 Agency Without Theology
    55:11 Horizontal Gene Transfer
    58:34 Three Testable Agency Ideas
    01:00:00 Popper And Falsification
    01:06:05 Episolution And Cellular Mind
    01:12:58 Harmonic Resonance And Sleep
    01:17:12 Attention And Surprise Learning
    01:20:33 Personal Journey And Meaning
    01:26:24 Love Openness And Invitation
    01:30:16 Otter Story Farewell

    Support the show

    Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott

    Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects.

    Please rate and review with love.
    YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Substack.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 32 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません